37 degrees Celsius, 98.6 Fahrenheit. That's normal body temperature, right?
Wrong.
New data suggests true "normal" is 98.0 degrees. (thread)
We get 98.6 degrees from this guy Karl Wunderlich, who measured 1,000,000 temperatures from 25,000 Germans in the mid 1800s. He was really the first to realize that "fever" was not itself a disease, but a symptom of a disease.
He took the average, got 98.6, and that was that. UNTIL NOW.
(Ok honestly, people have known this was wrong for a while, but the new data is cool).
From @JAMAInternalMed:
Thanks to the electronic health record, we have access to countless temperatures taken during clinical visits. Can we just average those?
Of course not. People see their docs for reasons, and some of those reasons cause fever. Before the new paper, people estimating normal would just exclude people with diagnosis codes associated with fever (infections, etc).
But that's sort of arbitrary. What the authors do here is use an algorithm called LIMIT that identifies diagnosis codes disproportionately present in the tails of distribution. Not arbitrary at all.
That's a data-driven way to find a diagnosis that does something to body temperature. And a lot of these were predictable (cough, UTI), but actually diabetes was MUCH more prevalent in the low outliers body temp-wise. So ALL people with diabetes were dropped from the "normal" pop
Once you drop all people with codes that, according to the data, might affect temperature, you can (finally) take the mean. And you get... 36.6 C, 98.0 F.
Of course, this varies by age, sex, and time of day as you can see here.
They even created a little web calculator that you can visit which will tell you YOUR normal temperature based on these parameters. Here's mine for 2pm. normaltemperature.stanford.edu
So, yup, humans are colder-blooded than we thought. And now (for once) Fahrenheit gets the nice round number. Sorry metric bros.
More detail in my column on @medscape here. medscape.com/viewarticle/99…
The fact that GLP-1 receptor agonists (like Ozempic and Mounjaro) are the most powerful weight loss drugs ever is NOT the most interesting thing about them. More stuff keeps coming out - and the effects are just wild. This week? A reduction in dementia risk. Breakdown below.
This week, for @medscape, I reviewed this article, appearing in @jamaneurology. It's the first real meta-analysis of the effect of glucose-lowering drugs on dementia focusing solely on randomized trials. buff.ly/J5PXkL8
@Medscape The background here is that the SGLT2-inhibitors, pioglitazone, metformin, and the GLP-1 receptor agonists have all been shown to protect the heart in diabetes. Would they protect the brain as well? The problem is that these trials were not designed to identify dementia.
The GLP-1 receptor agonists (like Ozempic and Mounjaro) are wildly effective weight-loss agents. But are they COST-effective? That's a trickier question. And a new study just out in JAMA Health Forum provides an answer. A resounding "no."
(Thread)
For those of you who like reading articles in the traditional way, please check out my weekly column @Medscape. Good comments there too. buff.ly/4IhGleH
@Medscape I tend to evaluate a drug in terms of efficacy or effectiveness, not cost-effectiveness because I, like most doctors, find it incredibly difficult to know what a drug I may prescribe actually costs (yes, it's ridiculous. Yes, it's true)
If you were on social media during the pandemic, you came across #DiedSuddenly.
Stories of young people, healthy, suffering fatal cardiac arrest out of nowhere. The implication? Those evil vaccines.
It was all bullshit. But I want to talk about why it was so effective.
🧵
Before we dive in, I have a bit longer version of this thread @medscape: buff.ly/4keHNvW
@Medscape The reason I was thinking about this issue this week was because of this study, just published @jamanetworkopen, examining the rate of sudden cardiac arrest and sudden death in middle school, high school, and college athletes. buff.ly/4bkqcPk
NIH has announced a cut in the "indirect rate" to 15% across the board, in a move that appears to be retroactive to even existing grants. This is a bloodbath for research institutions throughout the country.
Brief explainer for those not in this world:
If I am awarded a grant for the NIH, it covers my budget for the research study. It ALSO awards a percentage of that budget (over what I need for the study) to Yale, my institution. That overage is called the indirect rate.
This money is used to pay for office space, electricity, internet, library, journal subscriptions, administrators, printer paper, etc. This stuff is EXPLICITLY not allowed in the main budget for a research study. I can't budget for printer paper. That is all in the "indirects".
This thing keeps happening with ultra-processed food research and it's very confusing to me. People seem to be searching for a link with bad health outcomes that is *independent* of caloric intake. Like... folks... that's the link. (brief 🧵)
I think I got on this kick with the JFK hearings. There was... a lot there. His thoughts about UPF actually come close to the mark though. Except he did this thing that a lot of people do - he blamed the health outcomes of UPF intake on the chemicals and additives and stuff.
The reason that's dangerous is the implication that if we got rid of that stuff, the food would be better for us. Like Doritos without preservatives would be good for us or something. It's really not true.
Every week, I see a new study talking about this or that effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists like #ozempic. FINALLY, we have a study evaluating all the outcomes (good and bad) in one dataset. There are some... surprises. 🧵
Kudos to @zalaly for this analysis, appearing in @NatureMedicine.
You can find the primary source here: buff.ly/4jm6iqC
And my (more in depth) @medscape column here: buff.ly/4gZtbyu
(Or stick with me on this thread).
@zalaly @NatureMedicine @Medscape This is discovery research. It's a shotgun approach to linking the exposure of interest (GLP1ra) to a slew of outcomes. Think the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. You can point a telescope at some interesting planet or you can listen to the entire sky at once.